elmo667 wrote:BTW if all union teachers are so great why is the union so afraid of a voucher system?

I see you miss-typed again.Naturally not all union teachers are great, just as not all are bad, short, tall, or have good eyesight.

Unions don't like voucher systems when those are used to subvert funding of schools, funnel money to private schools that can be selective about which students they accept, and basically act as a scab system.

This is easy to understand, so why are you asking?

IF the scabs are outperforming the unionized teachers... why shouldn't they continue to teach while the 'regular teachers' improve their skills to be on a par?

elmo667 wrote:BTW if all union teachers are so great why is the union so afraid of a voucher system?

I see you miss-typed again.Naturally not all union teachers are great, just as not all are bad, short, tall, or have good eyesight.

Unions don't like voucher systems when those are used to subvert funding of schools, funnel money to private schools that can be selective about which students they accept, and basically act as a scab system.

This is easy to understand, so why are you asking?

IF the scabs are outperforming the unionized teachers... why shouldn't they continue to teach while the 'regular teachers' improve their skills to be on a par?

Tell you what Josh, how about you think over your question a bit before we get into this?

Start with the difference between saying that there is a "scab system" and calling other teachers scabs, and then see if you can answer in your own head why vouchers that allow private schools to pick and choose students effectively sabotages public schools who can't.

The next President needs to be Scientifically Literate - support a Science Debate for all Candidates

elmo667 wrote:BTW if all union teachers are so great why is the union so afraid of a voucher system?

I see you miss-typed again.Naturally not all union teachers are great, just as not all are bad, short, tall, or have good eyesight.

Unions don't like voucher systems when those are used to subvert funding of schools, funnel money to private schools that can be selective about which students they accept, and basically act as a scab system.

This is easy to understand, so why are you asking?

I didn't mis type anything that time. One of the larger problems with the teachers union is there is zero accountability. I am glad we agree they are not all great. Because I don't want to debate the word great lets use average or better instead of great. How do you we get rid of the ones who are not average or better? Even better how do we define the ones who are not average or better? Why do we have a system that is not only ok with not average or better but actually tries to protect not average or better?

Union supporters wont let us use the kids grades or graduation rates as a way to grade the teachers.In DPS about half of the kids don't graduate of those that do a third or so aren't ready for college. I would give DPS an F for a grade. The union supporters say it isn't the teachers fault the kids come from broken homes and are un-teachable. Ok then why are we paying for teachers? We need $10 an hour baby sitters in the schools the union supporters say are unteachable. Of course no union honk would ok yanking the teachers from the schools they define as hoples so we continue to pay for alleged top talent and get rotten results. How is that fair to the taxpayer or the teachers who are average or better?

elmo667 wrote:One of the larger problems with the teachers union is there is zero accountability. Union supporters wont let us use the kids grades or graduation rates as a way to grade the teachers.

It is a good question but one on which the politicians, administrators, test vendors, teachers, and parents have been unable to agree.

The simple truth is that as a society, we don't give a toot about education, we don't know what it is for, and we outright denigrate intellectual prowess.In this country a person who pretends to be a bumpkin can get cheers and voted into office.

We have political scuffles over the curriculum, we apply rules that are counter-productive and force teachers to teach-to-test, and we have disinterested students with un-engaged parents.

Any metric introduced into such a mix is sure to be bogus and merely punishes teachers for the behavior of everyone else.

In DPS about half of the kids don't graduate of those that do a third or so aren't ready for college. I would give DPS an F for a grade. The union supporters say it isn't the teachers fault the kids come from broken homes and are un-teachable.

Indeed.The university lecturers blame the schools for sending them students who don't even know how to sit still, read complex sentences, or take notes. Student know about enough to vandalize their books with a highlighter, and on average, thats the sum of their ability and interest.

The high-schools say that this is the way they got the kids from middle-school and that any attempt to hold kids back or enforce standards is met with howls of outrage from parents, politicians, and when the teachers look for support the administration is usually hiding under the table.

... and so it goes all the way down to elementary school, at which point the teachers will look you straight in the eye and tell you that if they don't perform like circus clowns and make everything "fun", the children simply don't pay attention to the lesson plan. They receive children each morning who are malnourished, sleep-deprived, and over-stimulated, and their work is cut out just to keep them from having tantrums, dozing off, or wandering about.

You can't fix endemic anti-intellectualism by putting the screws on the teachers.

Ok then why are we paying for teachers? We need $10 an hour baby sitters in the schools the union supporters say are unteachable.

So just warehouse them while parents are at work?

Of course no union honk would ok yanking the teachers from the schools they define as hoples so we continue to pay for alleged top talent and get rotten results.

Indeed, because holding the teachers to blame for bad curricula, bad parenting, bad administration, and indifferent kids simply isn't fair, and the reason teachers are unionized is precisely because everyone's knee-jerk solution is to blame the teachers.

Teachers have no problem taking the blame for their own faults, but they aren't all that eager to pick up the tab for a broken system.

How is that fair to the taxpayer or the teachers who are average or better?

It isn't, but the taxpayers keep voting in idiots, parents haven't actually been parenting for several generations, and as a nation we haven't a clue what we want education to do.We don't know if it is meant to train workers, grow intellect, develop character, or create "well-rounded" people.

How is it fair to blame the teachers for this mess?

The next President needs to be Scientifically Literate - support a Science Debate for all Candidates

In DPS about half of the kids don't graduate of those that do a third or so aren't ready for college. I would give DPS an F for a grade. The union supporters say it isn't the teachers fault the kids come from broken homes and are un-teachable.

Indeed.The university lecturers blame the schools for sending them students who don't even know how to sit still, read complex sentences, or take notes. Student know about enough to vandalize their books with a highlighter, and on average, thats the sum of their ability and interest.

The high-schools say that this is the way they got the kids from middle-school and that any attempt to hold kids back or enforce standards is met with howls of outrage from parents, politicians, and when the teachers look for support the administration is usually hiding under the table.

... and so it goes all the way down to elementary school, at which point the teachers will look you straight in the eye and tell you that if they don't perform like circus clowns and make everything "fun", the children simply don't pay attention to the lesson plan. They receive children each morning who are malnourished, sleep-deprived, and over-stimulated, and their work is cut out just to keep them from having tantrums, dozing off, or wandering about.

You can't fix endemic anti-intellectualism by putting the screws on the teachers.

Ok then why are we paying for teachers? We need $10 an hour baby sitters in the schools the union supporters say are unteachable.

So just warehouse them while parents are at work?

From what you just described we do not need a billion dollar education system sadly all we need a warehouse. I think happen to your description is sophistical. Somehow America produces brain surgens, rocket scientists, engineers, architects, and other smarty pants with the education system you just described as shattered. From reading your posts you appear to be all in on higher education. I can't figure out how someone could be all about higher education and at the same time pro-teachers union. The union does nothing to help education. It is a cash cow for the democratic party, a drain on tax dollars and a shield for its weakest members.

elmo667 wrote:From what you just described we do not need a billion dollar education system sadly all we need a warehouse.

We need another visible sputnik moment so that scientists, engineers, etc. once again are seen as appropriate role models instead of Kim Khardashian, Paris Hilton, and the various other celeb airheads.

Somehow America produces brain surgens, rocket scientists, engineers, architects, and other smarty pants with the education system you just described as shattered.

Indeed, and although many, if not most, of those are first generation imports, a lot thrive in spite of the mess in education, or because they were in schools that were effective. Almost all of them had parents who were also high performers and gave them all kinds of support to excel intellectually.

It isn't like nobody makes it out the other end, it is just that we are severely handicapping students.In the PISA scores you can see that we start out fine, but with every year our kids lag further behind the rest of the western world, and increasingly behind China.

From reading your posts you appear to be all in on higher education. I can't figure out how someone could be all about higher education and at the same time pro-teachers union.

It is a puzzle, isn't it?Maybe your anti-unionism is really the thing you should be wondering about. - other than party-political anti-union sources, do you really have any reason to think the unions are the cause of this situation?

Unions do a lot to improve education, as I described above.Perhaps you should visit your local teacher's union and ask them to show you.

It is a cash cow for the democratic party, a drain on tax dollars and a shield for its weakest members.

Well they try to protect all members against rabid politicians, so yes, they will be more democratic-leaning politically, and to be sure they protect the weak, that's the point of a group of people getting together democratically and being mutually supportive.

Instead of throwing the weak to the wolves, they try to help and guide them.

Perhaps you feel we should just sack the lowest 10% of performers each year?

Last edited by Rodentia on April 25th, 2012, 12:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The next President needs to be Scientifically Literate - support a Science Debate for all Candidates

In DPS about half of the kids don't graduate of those that do a third or so aren't ready for college. I would give DPS an F for a grade. The union supporters say it isn't the teachers fault the kids come from broken homes and are un-teachable.

Indeed.The university lecturers blame the schools for sending them students who don't even know how to sit still, read complex sentences, or take notes. Student know about enough to vandalize their books with a highlighter, and on average, thats the sum of their ability and interest.

The high-schools say that this is the way they got the kids from middle-school and that any attempt to hold kids back or enforce standards is met with howls of outrage from parents, politicians, and when the teachers look for support the administration is usually hiding under the table.

... and so it goes all the way down to elementary school, at which point the teachers will look you straight in the eye and tell you that if they don't perform like circus clowns and make everything "fun", the children simply don't pay attention to the lesson plan. They receive children each morning who are malnourished, sleep-deprived, and over-stimulated, and their work is cut out just to keep them from having tantrums, dozing off, or wandering about.

You can't fix endemic anti-intellectualism by putting the screws on the teachers.

Ok then why are we paying for teachers? We need $10 an hour baby sitters in the schools the union supporters say are unteachable.

So just warehouse them while parents are at work?

From what you just described we do not need a billion dollar education system sadly all we need a warehouse. I think happen to your description is sophistical. Somehow America produces brain surgens, rocket scientists, engineers, architects, and other smarty pants with the education system you just described as shattered. From reading your posts you appear to be all in on higher education. I can't figure out how someone could be all about higher education and at the same time pro-teachers union. The union does nothing to help education. It is a cash cow for the democratic party, a drain on tax dollars and a shield for its weakest members.

In DPS about half of the kids don't graduate of those that do a third or so aren't ready for college. I would give DPS an F for a grade. The union supporters say it isn't the teachers fault the kids come from broken homes and are un-teachable.

Indeed.The university lecturers blame the schools for sending them students who don't even know how to sit still, read complex sentences, or take notes. Student know about enough to vandalize their books with a highlighter, and on average, thats the sum of their ability and interest.

The high-schools say that this is the way they got the kids from middle-school and that any attempt to hold kids back or enforce standards is met with howls of outrage from parents, politicians, and when the teachers look for support the administration is usually hiding under the table.

... and so it goes all the way down to elementary school, at which point the teachers will look you straight in the eye and tell you that if they don't perform like circus clowns and make everything "fun", the children simply don't pay attention to the lesson plan. They receive children each morning who are malnourished, sleep-deprived, and over-stimulated, and their work is cut out just to keep them from having tantrums, dozing off, or wandering about.

You can't fix endemic anti-intellectualism by putting the screws on the teachers.

Ok then why are we paying for teachers? We need $10 an hour baby sitters in the schools the union supporters say are unteachable.

So just warehouse them while parents are at work?

From what you just described we do not need a billion dollar education system sadly all we need a warehouse. I think happen to your description is sophistical. Somehow America produces brain surgens, rocket scientists, engineers, architects, and other smarty pants with the education system you just described as shattered. From reading your posts you appear to be all in on higher education. I can't figure out how someone could be all about higher education and at the same time pro-teachers union. The union does nothing to help education. It is a cash cow for the democratic party, a drain on tax dollars and a shield for its weakest members.

Q: Approximately how old is Planet Earth ?

.

They say about 4.5 billion years give or take. I’m guess you are making reference to my avatar. Take another peek he is holding a dinosaur. I’m not in the religious zealot bucket. I’m in the we are paying a ton of money for education and getting shabby results bucket.

elmo667 wrote: I’m in the we are paying a ton of money for education and getting shabby results bucket.

I think all of us are in that bucket.

If you look at the OECD report, we spend more than the OECD average per student (cumulative K-12 and tertiary), but in teacher salaries we are below the OECD average.

It isn't the cost of teachers that puts us above the mean.

p.s. In case you think that student loan debt is just a Gen X thing, Americans 60+ have around $36bn in student loan debt.

I would rather get rid of the bottom 10% than have them teach my children.

A great way to get rid of student loan debt is to not allow any more loans on fine arts, woman’s study’s, under water basket weaving, and any other nonsense that can’t get you a job. Why we would loan money on a degree that has no future is crazy.

elmo667 wrote:I would rather get rid of the bottom 10% than have them teach my children.

Ah, so you agree with the "Chainsaw Al" approach.Incidentally, the lower 10% might not be bad, they are just the lowest 10%.It means that no matter how well everyone does, you put a bullet in the lowest 10% each year.

A great way to get rid of student loan debt is to not allow any more loans on fine arts, woman’s study’s, under water basket weaving, and any other nonsense that can’t get you a job.

Ok, so pick some actual degrees rather than something fictitious like "underwater basket weaving", and let's see what the details are.

Why we would loan money on a degree that has no future is crazy.

Good idea, so who gets to decide if it has no future?

A politician?An administrator?The head of the Engineering faculty?A government dude?The local business group?You and I?A public vote?

The next President needs to be Scientifically Literate - support a Science Debate for all Candidates

elmo667 wrote:I would rather get rid of the bottom 10% than have them teach my children.

Ah, so you agree with the "Chainsaw Al" approach.Incidentally, the lower 10% might not be bad, they are just the lowest 10%.It means that no matter how well everyone does, you put a bullet in the lowest 10% each year.

A great way to get rid of student loan debt is to not allow any more loans on fine arts, woman’s study’s, under water basket weaving, and any other nonsense that can’t get you a job.

Ok, so pick some actual degrees rather than something fictitious like "underwater basket weaving", and let's see what the details are.

Why we would loan money on a degree that has no future is crazy.

Good idea, so who gets to decide if it has no future?

A politician?An administrator?The head of the Engineering faculty?A government dude?The local business group?You and I?A public vote?

The lowest 10% is the lowest 10%. See Ya. Thank you and good night now. At least until the DPS graduation rate is above 85%Ok lets start with woman's study and fine arts. (P.S. I have a fine arts degree from the San Francisco institute (a damn fine arts college) that I never use.Who gets to decide on what degrees matter. . . people that hire people. I don't care if you want to pay for a fine arts degree. . . I did. Just don't ask for a loan to get one. Please don't don't ask for a loan for a fine arts degree and then complain about paying for the loan because you can't get job with your fine arts degree. Come on Science guy get on the side of education and get off of the side of the union. The unions job is to protect the union and its members not to protect education.

elmo667 wrote:The lowest 10% is the lowest 10%. See Ya. Thank you and good night now.

Just curious, have you ever worked in a firm that followed the Chainsaw Al approach?

Ok lets start with woman's study and fine arts. (P.S. I have a fine arts degree from the San Francisco institute (a damn fine arts college) that I never use.Who gets to decide on what degrees matter. . . people that hire people.

So how does this work, if employers show an interest then we put public funding in place for those degrees, but if no employers give the thumbs-up we do not fund it from tax-payer's money?

Please don't don't ask for a loan for a fine arts degree and then complain about paying for the loan because you can't get job with your fine arts degree.

I know plenty of people with engineering degrees that can't find a job in engineering simply because the demand vanished about as they graduated.

What about them?

I also know plenty of people whose fine-arts degrees have led to jobs in marketing, advertising, and illustration.

So what about them?

The next President needs to be Scientifically Literate - support a Science Debate for all Candidates

elmo667 wrote:The lowest 10% is the lowest 10%. See Ya. Thank you and good night now.

Just curious, have you ever worked in a firm that followed the Chainsaw Al approach?

Ok lets start with woman's study and fine arts. (P.S. I have a fine arts degree from the San Francisco institute (a damn fine arts college) that I never use.Who gets to decide on what degrees matter. . . people that hire people.

So how does this work, if employers show an interest then we put public funding in place for those degrees, but if no employers give the thumbs-up we do not fund it from tax-payer's money?

Please don't don't ask for a loan for a fine arts degree and then complain about paying for the loan because you can't get job with your fine arts degree.

I know plenty of people with engineering degrees that can't find a job in engineering simply because the demand vanished about as they graduated.

What about them?

I also know plenty of people whose fine-arts degrees have led to jobs in marketing, advertising, and illustration.

So what about them?

Every job I've ever had used the fire the bottom 10% approche. When people own a business and their capitol is on the line they don't allow garbage to hang around. The union run public school not only allows garbage they protect it.

We both know if a person gets an engineering degree they will have a much higher chance of finding a job in the field of their study then someone who gets a degree in oil painting, or women's study's. I'll bet you a $100 my guy gets a job in his field before your guy. I pick the kid coming out fo UNLV with a degree in hotel and restaurant management. You can have the kid coming out of Metro who studied music. People who manage to the exception usually fail.

elmo667 wrote:Every job I've ever had used the fire the bottom 10% approche.

No wonder you are such a sourpuss.

It just goes to show how it makes people unhappy and bitter.One of the major success factor these days is being able to access discretionary effort and passion in your staff, if you have a Chainsaw Al regime all you get is obedience while you are watching and they desert as soon as you have a bad quarter and a less hostile employer smiles at them.

When people own a business and their capitol is on the line they don't allow garbage to hang around.

Yah, a bad sign is when you start referring to the bottom 10% as "garbage".From there it only goes downhill.

We both know if a person gets an engineering degree they will have a much higher chance of finding a job in the field of their study then someone who gets a degree in oil painting, or women's study's.

Mostly, not always.

However, the job market for engineers is often pretty soft because a lot of those jobs are dependent on government public works, defense, and manufacturing.

I'll bet you a $100 my guy gets a job in his field before your guy. I pick the kid coming out fo UNLV with a degree in hotel and restaurant management. You can have the kid coming out of Metro who studied music.

Bad deal.You take the UNLVC guy, I take the graduate from Julliard.I bet my guy gets over $80k a year before yours gets over $60k.

People who manage to the exception usually fail.

Managers who are bad leaders always fail.

The next President needs to be Scientifically Literate - support a Science Debate for all Candidates

If you do allow the bottom 10% to 'hang around' for too long then you start accumulating a lot more like them. Soon your whole organization is at the level of that bottom 10% because those who were in the top 10% have moved on to a place where they will advance and all that remains is the bottom 10% who have no incentive to leave.

So yeah businesses actively work to improve the bottom 10-20% or replace them. That or they don't stay in business for long. Calling this the Chainsaw Al approach is disingenuous at best. Good leaders do this all the time. Great leaders not only do this but insist that everyone around them do so as well.

I do however find it ironic that you are argueing that someone that overcame intense competition to make it to Juliard will outperform the 'average' person coming out of an average degree program with an average degree. Would you take the same music major out of UNLV against that Hotel Management degree?

Josh B wrote:If you do allow the bottom 10% to 'hang around' for too long then you start accumulating a lot more like them. Soon your whole organization is at the level of that bottom 10% because those who were in the top 10% have moved on to a place where they will advance and all that remains is the bottom 10% who have no incentive to leave.

So what you are saying is that your managers and HR are complete idiots that hire people at random with no screening, no matching to requirements, and also no L&D at all.

There would be no other explanation for how the lowest 10% do not meet requirements.

Again, just because somebody is in the lowest 10% doesn't mean they are bad. Even the highest performing team in the world has a "lowest 10%".

Calling this the Chainsaw Al approach is disingenuous at best.

er ... no.That was Al Dunlap's stated method, and he earned the nickname "Chainsaw Al" because of his management behavior.

Good leaders do this all the time. Great leaders not only do this but insist that everyone around them do so as well.

No they don't.Getting the right people on the bus and the wrong people off doesn't mean you continually cull the lowest performing 10%. A good leader would realize that this would be an invitation for gaming, backbiting, sabotage, and ongoing turmoil.

If 10% of my staff were below requirement I would fire the HR director and the managers of any cluster of those underperformers.

I do however find it ironic that you are argueing that someone that overcame intense competition to make it to Juliard will outperform the 'average' person coming out of an average degree program with an average degree.

Why is that ironic?The average Julliard grad will be better than the average from most other colleges for that subject range.That is the effect of selection and training.

The next President needs to be Scientifically Literate - support a Science Debate for all Candidates

Josh B wrote:If you do allow the bottom 10% to 'hang around' for too long then you start accumulating a lot more like them. Soon your whole organization is at the level of that bottom 10% because those who were in the top 10% have moved on to a place where they will advance and all that remains is the bottom 10% who have no incentive to leave.

So what you are saying is that your managers and HR are complete idiots that hire people at random with no screening, no matching to requirements, and also no L&D at all.

There would be no other explanation for how the lowest 10% do not meet requirements.

Again, just because somebody is in the lowest 10% doesn't mean they are bad. Even the highest performing team in the world has a "lowest 10%".

Calling this the Chainsaw Al approach is disingenuous at best.

er ... no.That was Al Dunlap's stated method, and he earned the nickname "Chainsaw Al" because of his management behavior.

Good leaders do this all the time. Great leaders not only do this but insist that everyone around them do so as well.

No they don't.Getting the right people on the bus and the wrong people off doesn't mean you continually cull the lowest performing 10%. A good leader would realize that this would be an invitation for gaming, backbiting, sabotage, and ongoing turmoil.

If 10% of my staff were below requirement I would fire the HR director and the managers of any cluster of those underperformers.

I do however find it ironic that you are argueing that someone that overcame intense competition to make it to Juliard will outperform the 'average' person coming out of an average degree program with an average degree.

Why is that ironic?The average Julliard grad will be better than the average from most other colleges for that subject range.That is the effect of selection and training.

1. The bottom 10% - There is always a bottom 10% DUH we get that. We also get that there might be reasons why a person might be in that bottom 10%. What you have decided to argue apparently is that we should always keep all of the bottom 10%. Why I couldn't possibly imagine. Should those bottom 10% be allowed a chance to get out of that range? Most certainly so especially if there were other mitigating factors. However, if that bottom 10% is the same people repeatedly (and it usually is) then the company should cut the losses and their employment. Now if HR/Management are continually hiring people that are bottom 10% or that are not meeting basic job requirements wouldnt that also put them in that bottom 10%? It certainly would at any company I have ever worked at.2. Your second arguement is against an argument that was never put forward.3. So you do think that a person who has selected a degree with demand in the job market will be more likely to get a job than someone that has chosen a degree with no demand in the job market? The irony is your comparing apples to oranges to ignore the real argument you yourself put forward. So do you think your average Juliard graduate will make more money than the average Harvard Law or MIT graduate will? Do you think that the average music major will make more than the average engineer/accountant etc? Lets compare apples to apples.

Josh B wrote:1. The bottom 10% - There is always a bottom 10% DUH we get that.

No, I don't think you do actually.The rest of your post continues to conflate a percentile ranking with performance or ability.

What you don't seem to get is that the bottom 10% might all be way better than satisfactory.The bottom 10% of the top twenty surgeons in the world are still fantastic performers.

If your bottom 10% are useless people, then you should probably fire the HR director and their manager.

What you have decided to argue apparently is that we should always keep all of the bottom 10%.

Nope.Get the right people on the bus and the wrong ones off, but don't think that the lowest 10% is meaningful.

if that bottom 10% is the same people repeatedly (and it usually is) then the company should cut the losses and their employment.

See, this is where your head is just on backwards.

The percentile has nothing to do with it, either the individuals are acceptable performers or not, and the % is irrelevant other than to tell you something about the labor market or your firm.If 10% of your staff are below the satisfactory level then you either have a labor pool problem or you are doing something very wrong with regards to work processes and recruitment.

3. So you do think that a person who has selected a degree with demand in the job market will be more likely to get a job than someone that has chosen a degree with no demand in the job market?

er .. sorta. The raw probability of getting a job is the ratio of vacancies to the number of candidates.

So do you think your average Juliard graduate will make more money than the average Harvard Law or MIT graduate will?

Nope, but more than the hospitality guy that was offered.

Do you think that the average music major will make more than the average engineer/accountant etc? Lets compare apples to apples.

Nope.

The next President needs to be Scientifically Literate - support a Science Debate for all Candidates